Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,203 studies31 sourcesUpdated 38 min ago
PreprintarXiv licencearXiv

How Risky Is Your Data-Driven Policy?

Abstract

Data-driven algorithms are ubiquitous across industries, and there is an extensive literature on analyzing their \emph{average} performance. The risk profile of such algorithms, while critical, is much less understood. This paper quantifies the risk of data-driven policies and isolates its sources. We evaluate a policy through the conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) of its loss over the training sample, any policy randomization, and the future outcome, at a fixed unknown distribution. Regret against an oracle that knows the distribution decomposes into expected post-sample regret (PS), the average outcome-only CVaR gap of the selected action, and a sample-risk premium (SR), the additional tail risk omitted by averaging those evaluations. The analogous premium vanishes under expected loss. We characterize when the premium vanishes and how large it is relative to post-sample regret. For losses with a continuous density near the tail cutoff, we identify conditions under which both components decay at the same rate, yet the limiting ratio of the premium to post-sample regret can reach the thousands. When a probability mass at the cutoff moves with the action, the premium can decay more slowly and dominate post-sample regret. We establish conditions under which sample average approximation learns the oracle action at rate n−1/2 in both settings, but its combined-risk regret is of order n−1 in the first and n−1/2 in the second. In finite-sample numerical examples of SAA in both settings, the premium accounts for approximately 74%--97% of regret.

Related

  1. Reduction of the integro-differential equation to an ordinary differential equation in ruin models with investment in a risky asset
    Goluba Yurieva
    arXivPreprintCC BY-SA 4.0Full textProbabilityarXiv
  2. Build Your Own Neural Network From Scratch
    Samantha Donner, Ethan Geary, Peter March +1
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textGeneral mathematicsarXiv
  3. A Branching Process with Geometric Emigration and the "Have Your Cookie and Eat It" Random Walk
    Patrick Carper
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textProbabilityarXiv
  4. How protomodular is your favourite category?
    Maria Manuel Clementino, Diana Rodelo
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textAlgebra & number theoryarXiv
  5. Choose your own adventure: How data source selection shapes urban accessibility analyses
    Geoff Boeing, Jiyoon Kim, Daniele Simon-Thompson +2
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textStatisticsarXiv
BibTeX
@misc{besbes2026risky,
  title = {{How Risky Is Your Data-Driven Policy?}},
  author = {Omar Besbes and Alon Rieger},
  howpublished = {arXiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2611.04292},
  eprint = {2611.04292},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.04292},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - How Risky Is Your Data-Driven Policy?
AU  - Omar Besbes
AU  - Alon Rieger
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/03
PB  - arXiv
DO  - 10.48550/arxiv.2611.04292
UR  - https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.04292
AB  - Data-driven algorithms are ubiquitous across industries, and there is an extensive literature on analyzing their \emph{average} performance. The risk profile of such algorithms, while critical, is much less understood. This paper quantifies the risk of data-driven policies and isolates its sources. We evaluate a policy through the conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) of its loss over the training sample, any policy randomization, and the future outcome, at a fixed unknown distribution. Regret against an oracle that knows the distribution decomposes into expected post-sample regret (PS), the average outcome-only CVaR gap of the selected action, and a sample-risk premium (SR), the additional tail risk omitted by averaging those evaluations. The analogous premium vanishes under expected loss. We characterize when the premium vanishes and how large it is relative to post-sample regret. For losses with a continuous density near the tail cutoff, we identify conditions under which both components decay at the same rate, yet the limiting ratio of the premium to post-sample regret can reach the thousands. When a probability mass at the cutoff moves with the action, the premium can decay more slowly and dominate post-sample regret. We establish conditions under which sample average approximation learns the oracle action at rate n^−1/2 in both settings, but its combined-risk regret is of order n^−1 in the first and n^−1/2 in the second. In finite-sample numerical examples of SAA in both settings, the premium accounts for approximately 74%--97% of regret.
ER  -